The race to rationality review and the score of the German Federal Constitutional Court

Legisprudence

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 347-378

  Meßerschmidt, Klaus ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ERLANGEN NUREMBERG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Better regulation; Efficiency; German federal constitutional court; Impact review; Judicial review; Procedural review; Prognosis; Proportionality; Rational lawmaking; Substantive review

Indexed keywords

EID: 84875878945     PISSN: 17521467     EISSN: 17521475     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5235/17521467.6.3.347     Document Type: Review

References (154)

1. R.A.J. van Gestel, 'Evidence-based Lawmaking and the Quality of Legislation: Regulatory Impact Assessments in the European Union and the Netherlands' in H. Schäffer and J. Iliopoulos-Strangas (eds.), State Modernization in Europe (Bruylant 2007) 141.
2. P. Popelier, 'Legal Certainty and Principles of Proper Law Making' (2000) 2 European Journal of Law Reform 321.
3. K. Schlaich, 'Die Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit im Gefüge der Staatsfunktionen' (1981) 39 Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer 99, 109.
4. G. Vanberg, The Politics of Constitutional Review in Germany (Cambridge University Press 2005) 56.
5. A. v. Brünneck, 'Constitutional Review and Legislation in Western Democracies' in C. Landfried (ed.), Constitutional Review and Legislation: An International Comparison (Nomos 1988) 219 and 258-259.
6. This paper mainly draws on references in English language. With regard to German sources it should be noted that the original ideas may have been published elsewhere or by another author. In general more detail references are to be found in the quoted papers or books.
7. M. Cappelletti, 'The Modern System of Judicial Review' in M. Cappelletti and W. Cohen (eds.), Comparative Constitutional Law (Bobbs-Merill 1979) 94.
8. T. Gawron and R. Rogowski, 'Implementation of German Federal Constitutional Court Decisions: Judicial Orders and the Federal Legislature' in R. Rogowski and T. Gawron (eds.), Constitutional Courts in Comparison: The U.S. Supreme Court and the German Federal Constitutional Court (Berghahn 2002) 239, 244-248.
9. C. Landfried, 'Constitutional Review and Legislation in the Federal Republic of Germany' in C. Landfried (ed.), Constitutional Review and Legislation: An International Comparison (Nomos 1988) 147, 154.
10. E. Blankenburg, 'Mobilization of the German Federal Constitutional Court' in R. Rogowski and T. Gawron (eds.), Constitutional Courts in Comparison: The U.S. Supreme Court and the German Federal Constitutional Court (Berghahn 2002) 157, 166.
11. J.B. Grossmann and C. Epp, 'Agenda Formation on the Policy Active U.S. Supreme Court' in R. Rogowski and T. Gawron (eds.), Constitutional Courts in Comparison: The U.S. Supreme Court and the German Federal Constitutional Court (Berghahn 2002) 103.
12. H.W. Perry, Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court (Harvard University Press 1991).
13. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915, 1923.
14. I.B. Flores, 'The Quest for Legisprudence: Constitutionalism v. Legalism' in L.J. Wintgens (ed.), The Theory and Practice and Legislation: Essays in Legisprudence (Ashgate 2005) 26, 29.
15. "[T]he word 'Legislation' is ambiguous as it implies activity-process, on one side, and product-result, on the other.".
16. J.H. Ely, Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review (Harvard University Press 1980).
17. st edn., Hermann Luchterhand Verlag 1969).
18. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915, 1925.
19. T. Gawron and R. Rogowski, 'Implementation of German Federal Constitutional Court Decisions: Judicial Orders and the Federal Legislature' in R. Rogowski and T. Gawron (eds.), Constitutional Courts in Comparison: The U.S. Supreme Court and the German Federal Constitutional Court (Berghahn 2002) 252.
20. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'Legislative Supremacy in the United States? Rethinking the Enrolled Bill Doctrine' (2009) 97 Georgetown Law Journal 323.
21. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915, 1924.
22. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915, 1922.
23. C. Crouch, Post-Democracy (Polity Press 2004) 41.
24. K. Meßerschmidt, 'Private Gesetzgebungshelfer: Gesetzgebungsoutsourcing als Privatisiertes Regulierungsmanagement in der Kanzleiendemokratie?' (2012) 51 Der Staat 387 (in particular on outsourcing of lawmaking, which became apparent in the banking-crisis-legislation).
25. G. Hoffmann, 'Das Verfassungsrechtliche Gebot der Rationalität im Gesetzgebungsverfahren' (1990) 10 Zeitschrift für Gesetzgebung 97.
26. G. Schwerdtfeger, 'Optimale Methodik der Gesetzgebung als Verfassungspflicht' in R. Stödter and W. Thoeme (eds.), Hamburg - Deutschland - Europa: Festschrift für Hans Peter Ipsen zum 70. Geburtstag (Mohr 1977) 173.
27. J. Austin, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (2nd edn., J. Murray 1861) 400.
28. K. van Aeken, 'Legal Instrumentalism Revisited' in L.J. Wintgens (ed.), The Theory and Practice and Legislation: Essays in Legisprudence (Ashgate 2005) 67 (on legal instrumentalism).
29. J. Raz, Between Authority and Interpretation (Oxford University Press 2009) 105.
30. J. Raz, Between Authority and Interpretation (Oxford University Press 2009) 104 ff.
31. L.D. Eriksson, 'Making Society through Legislation' in L.J. Wintgens (ed.), Legisprudence: A New Theoretical Approach in Legislation (Hart Publishing 2002) 41 and 47.
32. H.B. Winter, 'The Forum Model in Evaluation of Legislation' in L.J. Wintgens (ed.), Legisprudence: A New Theoretical Approach in Legislation (Hart Publishing 2002) 139 and 146 ff.
33. A. Renda, Impact Assessment in the EU: The State of the Art and the Art of the State (Centre for European Policy Studies 2006) 29 (referring to the UK example).
34. A. Renda, Impact Assessment in the EU: The State of the Art and the Art of the State (Centre for European Policy Studies 2006) 48 ff.
35. L. Fuller, The Anatomy of Law (Mentor 1968) 40 ff.
36. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915, 1923.
37. D. Keyaerts, 'Courts as Regulatory Watchdogs: Does the European Court of Justice Bark or Bite?' in P. Popelier, A. Mazmanyan and W. Vandenbruwaene (eds.), Role of Courts in a Context of Multilevel Governance (Intersentia 2012) no. 4.3.5.
38. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915, 1925.
39. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915, 1924.
40. K. van Aeken, 'Legal Instrumentalism Revisited' in L.J. Wintgens (ed.), The Theory and Practice and Legislation: Essays in Legisprudence (Ashgate 2005) 83.
41. U. Karpen, Gesetzgebungs-, Verwaltungs- und Rechtsprechungslehre: Beiträge zur Entwicklung einer Regelungstheorie (Nomos 1989) 42.
42. K. Meßerschmidt, Gesetzgebungsermessen (Nomos 2000) 777-816.
43. I.B. Flores, 'The Quest for Legisprudence: Constitutionalism v. Legalism' in L.J. Wintgens (ed.), The Theory and Practice and Legislation: Essays in Legisprudence (Ashgate 2005) 37 (referring to Max Weber).
44. W. Cyrul, 'How Rational is Rational Lawmaking' in L.J. Wintgens (ed.), The Theory and Practice and Legislation: Essays in Legisprudence (Ashgate 2005) 93.
45. However, some modest and vague provisions exist in the procedural codes on drafting legislation, e.g. [Gemeinsame Geschäftsordnung der Bundesministerien]. The Normenkontrollrat established at the office of the German Chancellor only deals with the issue of administrative burden. A framework of procedural rules for legislation was proposed.
46. J. Lücke, 'Die Allgemeine Gesetzgebungsordnung' (2001) 16 Zeitschrift für Gesetzgebung 1.
47. A. Renda, Impact Assessment in the EU: The State of the Art and the Art of the State (Centre for European Policy Studies 2006) 43.
48. D. Keyaerts, 'Courts as Regulatory Watchdogs: Does the European Court of Justice Bark or Bite?' in P. Popelier, A. Mazmanyan and W. Vandenbruwaene (eds.), Role of Courts in a Context of Multilevel Governance (Intersentia 2012) at no. 4.2 ff.
49. R.A.J. van Gestel and M.-C. Menting, 'Ex ante Evaluation and Alternatives to Legislation: Going Dutch?' (2011) 32 Statute Law Review 209, 217.
50. conclude that 'Community courts are slowly starting to recognize Better regulation tools as self-binding and essential procedural requirements, limiting their review to the existence (or otherwise) of a RIA or consultation process, without engaging in a detailed assessment of the way in which these procedures have effectively been undertaken'. For further indepth analysis of the relation between soft law and judicial review.
51. E. Korkea-Aho, 'Better Judicial Review? EU Courts and the Smart Regulation Agenda in Implementing Chemicals Regulation' (2012) 6(3) Legisprudence 397.
52. Commission, 'European Governance' (White Paper) COM (2001) 428 final.
53. Final Report November 2001.
54. A. Renda, Impact Assessment in the EU: The State of the Art and the Art of the State (Centre for European Policy Studies 2006) 50.
55. D. Keyaerts, 'Courts as Regulatory Watchdogs: Does the European Court of Justice Bark or Bite?' in P. Popelier, A. Mazmanyan and W. Vandenbruwaene (eds.), Role of Courts in a Context of Multilevel Governance (Intersentia 2012) 2.
56. D. Kommers, 'The Constitutional Court of the Federal Republic of Germany' (1994) 26 Comparative Political Studies 470.
57. T. Gawron and R. Rogowski, 'Implementation of German Federal Constitutional Court Decisions: Judicial Orders and the Federal Legislature' in R. Rogowski and T. Gawron (eds.), Constitutional Courts in Comparison: The U.S. Supreme Court and the German Federal Constitutional Court (Berghahn 2002) 243.
58. K. van Aeken, 'Legal Instrumentalism Revisited' in L.J. Wintgens (ed.), The Theory and Practice and Legislation: Essays in Legisprudence (Ashgate 2005) 78.
59. A. Wildavsky, Speaking Truth to Power (Little, Brown 1979).
60. P. Popelier, 'Preliminary Comments on the Role of Courts as Regulatory Watchdogs' (2012) 6(3) Legisprudence 257 (for the convergent trend in ECHR adjudication).
61. D.P. Currie, 'Lochner Abroad: Substantive Due Process and Equal Protection in the Federal Republic of Germany' [1989] Supreme Court Review 333, reprinted in (2008) 9 German Law Journal, 2179.
62. A.H. Türk, Judicial Review in EU Law (Edward Elgar 2009) 114.
63. D.P. Currie, 'Lochner Abroad: Substantive Due Process and Equal Protection in the Federal Republic of Germany' [1989] Supreme Court Review 333, reprinted in (2008) 9 German Law Journal, 2179, 2221.
64. 33 BVerfGE 303 (1972) at [351]; 54 BVerfGE 173 (1980) at [191].
65. D.P. Currie, 'Lochner Abroad: Substantive Due Process and Equal Protection in the Federal Republic of Germany' [1989] Supreme Court Review 333, reprinted in (2008) 9 German Law Journal, 2179, 2198 ff.
66. C. Engel, 'The Constitutional Court: Applying the Proportionality Principle - As a Subsidiary Authority for the Assessment of Political Outcomes' in C. Engel and A. Héritier (eds.), Linking Politics and Law (Nomos 2003) 287.
67. P. Popelier, 'Preliminary Comments on the Role of Courts as Regulatory Watchdogs' (2012) 6(3) Legisprudence 257.
68. S. Michalowski and L. Woods, German Constitutional Law: The Protection of Civil Liberties (Ashgate 1999) 83-85 (for a concise description in English).
69. S. Eng, 'Legislative Inflation and the Quality of Law' in L.J. Wintgens (ed.), Legisprudence: A New Theoretical Approach in Legislation (Hart Publishing 2002) 65, 76-78.
70. P. Popelier, 'Preliminary Comments on the Role of Courts as Regulatory Watchdogs' (2012) 6(3) Legisprudence 257.
71. K. Meßerschmidt, 'Efficiency and the Principle of Proportionality: Shall Lawyers Learn from Economists?' (2001) EuroFaculty Papers Riga.
72. K. Meßerschmidt, 'Ökonomische Effizienz und Juristische Verhältnismässigkeit: Gemeinsames und Trennendes' in E. Gawel (ed.), Effizienz im Umweltrecht: Grundsatzfragen Wirtschaftlicher Umweltnutzung aus Rechts-, Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftlicher Sicht (Nomos 2001) 219 (for a more extensive study in German).
73. A.H. Türk, Judicial Review in EU Law (Edward Elgar 2009) 133.
74. 3 BVerfGE 182 (1954).
75. L. Favoreu, 'The Constitutional Council and Parliament in France' in C. Landfried (ed.), Constitutional Review and Legislation: An International Comparison (Nomos 1988) 81, 102.
76. K. Meßerschmidt, Gesetzgebungsermessen (Nomos 2000) 654-712.
77. K. Meßerschmidt, Gesetzgebungsermessen (Nomos 2000) 270-305.
78. K. Meßerschmidt, Gesetzgebungsermessen (Nomos 2000) 817-880.
79. I. Bar-Siman-Tov, 'The Puzzling Resistance to Judicial Review of the Legislative Process' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 1915, 1924.
80. K. Meßerschmidt, Gesetzgebungsermessen (Nomos 2000) 621-627 (with further references).
81. 50 BVerfGE 290 (1979) Codetermination Case.
82. 7 BVerfGE 377 (1958) at [405].
83. A. v. Brünneck, 'Constitutional Review and Legislation in Western Democracies' in C. Landfried (ed.), Constitutional Review and Legislation: An International Comparison (Nomos 1988) 256-257.
84. K. Meßerschmidt, Gesetzgebungsermessen (Nomos 2000) 1048-1052.
85. K. Meßerschmidt, Gesetzgebungsermessen (Nomos 2000) 926-1040.
86. K. van Aeken, 'Legal Instrumentalism Revisited' in L.J. Wintgens (ed.), The Theory and Practice and Legislation: Essays in Legisprudence (Ashgate 2005) 78 (with further references).
87. K. Meßerschmidt, Gesetzgebungsermessen (Nomos 2000) 994-1004.
88. Article 296(2) TFEU has no counterpart in German constitutional law. J. Lücke, Begründungszwang und Verfassung: Zur Begründungspflicht der Gerichte, Behörden und Parlamente (Mohr 1987) pleaded in vain for obligatory reason-giving in legislation.
89. K. Meßerschmidt, Gesetzgebungsermessen (Nomos 2000) 917-918.
90. G. Vanberg, The Politics of Constitutional Review in Germany (Cambridge University Press 2005) 48 (arguing that the legislator is interested in strategies to reduce transparency).
91. J. Verschuuren (ed.), The Impact of Legislation: A Critical Analysis of Ex ante Evaluation (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2009) 5.
92. R.A.J. van Gestel and M.-C. Menting, 'Ex ante Evaluation and Alternatives to Legislation: Going Dutch?' (2011) 32 Statute Law Review 209, 211 ff.
93. K. Meßerschmidt, Gesetzgebungsermessen (Nomos 2000) 996-1004.
94. G. Vanberg, The Politics of Constitutional Review in Germany (Cambridge University Press 2005) 54-55.
95. J. Rogers, 'Information and Judicial Review: A Signaling Game of Legislative-Judicial Interaction' (2001) 45 American Journal of Political Science 84.
96. R.A.J. van Gestel and M.-C. Menting, 'Ex ante Evaluation and Alternatives to Legislation: Going Dutch?' (2011) 32 Statute Law Review 209, 212.
97. I.B. Flores, 'The Quest for Legisprudence: Constitutionalism v. Legalism' in L.J. Wintgens (ed.), The Theory and Practice and Legislation: Essays in Legisprudence (Ashgate 2005) 43
98. K. Meßerschmidt, 'Gesetzgebungslehre zwischen Wissenschaft und Politik: Entwicklungstendenzen der Legisprudenz' [2008] Zeitschrift für das Juristische Studium (ZJS) 111, 224.
99. Case 8/74 Procureur du Roi v. Benoît and Gustave Dassonville [1974] ECR 837.
100. N. Emiliou, The Principle of Proportionality in European Law (Kluwer 1996).
101. A.H. Türk, Judicial Review in EU Law (Edward Elgar 2009) 135-138.
102. Case C-58/08 Vodafone Ltd and Others v. Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform [2010] ECR I-4999, paras. 55-68.
103. Case C-341/95 Gianni Bettati v. Safety Hi-Tech Srl [1998] ECR I-4355 at [35].
104. (i) Case T-13/99 Pfizer Animal Health SA v. Council of the European Union [2002] ECR II-3305 at [412]; Case C-347/03 Regione autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia and Agenzia regionale per lo sviluppo rurale (ERSA) v. Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali [2005] ECR I-3785 at [131]. (ii) Case T-180/00 Astipesca, SL v. Commission of the European Communities [2002] ECR II-3985 at [79]; Case T-125/01 José Martí Peix SA v. Commission of the European Communities [2003] ECR II-865 at [123]. (iii) Joined Cases T-332/00 and T-350/00 Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV, Free Trade Foods NV and Suproco NV v. Commission of the European Communities [2002] ECR II-4755 at [155].
105. A.H. Türk, Judicial Review in EU Law (Edward Elgar 2009) 146-147.
106. A.H. Türk, Judicial Review in EU Law (Edward Elgar 2009) 325.
107. Case 96/81 Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of the Netherlands [1982] ECR 1791 at [6]; Case C-408/97 Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of the Netherlands [2000] EDR I-6417 at [15]; Case 404/00 Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain [2003] ECR I-6695 at [26]; Case C-434/01 European Commission v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [2003] ECR I-13239 at [21]; Case C-194/01 Commission of the European Communities v. Republic of Austria [2004] ECR I-4579 at [34]; Case C-494/01 Commission of the European Communities v. Ireland [2005] ECR I-3331 at [41]; Case C-441/02 Commission of the European Communities Federal Republic of Germany [2006] ECR I-3449 at [48]; Case C-6/04 European Commission v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [2005] ECR I-9017 [75]; Case C-221/04 Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain [2006] ECR I- 4515 [59].
108. D. Keyaerts, 'Courts as Regulatory Watchdogs: Does the European Court of Justice Bark or Bite?' in P. Popelier, A. Mazmanyan and W. Vandenbruwaene (eds.), Role of Courts in a Context of Multilevel Governance (Intersentia 2012) 4.
109. R.A.J. van Gestel and M.-C. Menting, 'Ex ante Evaluation and Alternatives to Legislation: Going Dutch?' (2011) 32 Statute Law Review 209, 225.
110. Judgment of June 11, 1958 (Apothekenurteil; Pharmacy Decision) 7 BVerfGE 377 (1958).
111. Joined Cases C-570/07 and C-571/07 José Manuel Blanco Pérez and Maria del Pilar Chao Gómez v. Consejeria de Salud y Servicios Sanitarios and Principado de Asturias [2010] ECR I-4629.
112. A. v. Brünneck, 'Constitutional Review and Legislation in Western Democracies' in C. Landfried (ed.), Constitutional Review and Legislation: An International Comparison (Nomos 1988) 258.
113. Denied by J. Kokott, 'Der EuGH: Eine Neoliberale Institution?' in C. Hohmann-Dennhardt et al. (eds.), Grundrechte und Solidarität: Festschrift für Renate Jäger (Engel 2011) 115.
114. A. Vermeulen, Judging under Uncertainty: An Institutional Theory of Legal Interpretation (Harvard University Press 2006) 65.
115. N.K. Komesar, Imperfect Alternatives: Choosing Institutions in Law, Economics, and Public Policy (University of Chicago Press 1994).
116. A. Vermeulen, Judging under Uncertainty: An Institutional Theory of Legal Interpretation (Harvard University Press 2006) 64-70.
117. P. Popelier, 'Preliminary Comments on the Role of Courts as Regulatory Watchdogs' (2012) 6(3) Egisprudence 257.
118. R.A.J. van Gestel and M.-C. Menting, 'Ex ante Evaluation and Alternatives to Legislation: Going Dutch?' (2011) 32 Statute Law Review 209, 226.
119. R. Munday, 'In the Wake of "Good Governance": Impact Assessments and the Politicisation of Statutory Interpretation' (2008) 71 Modern Law Review 386.
120. D. Halberstam, 'Pluralism in Marbury and van Gend' in M.P. Maduro and L. Azoulai (eds.), The Past and Future of EU Law: The Classics of EU Law Revisited on the 50th Anniversary of the Rome Treaty (Hart Publishing 2010) 26 and 33-34.
121. A. v. Brünneck, 'Constitutional Review and Legislation in Western Democracies' in C. Landfried (ed.), Constitutional Review and Legislation: An International Comparison (Nomos 1988) 226-229.
122. C. Landfried, 'Constitutional Review and Legislation in the Federal Republic of Germany' in C. Landfried (ed.), Constitutional Review and Legislation: An International Comparison (Nomos 1988) 149.
123. Concludes: "Though a relationship between a professional career and their understanding of political problems can only be assumed, a trend towards the predominance of professional experience in the judiciary and in administration could imply that the judges are increasingly ill-prepared to cope with the many issues that are brought before the Court. It would therefore be desirable that judges represent a broader spectrum of professional experience,". Note
124. E. Blankenburg, 'Mobilization of the German Federal Constitutional Court' in R. Rogowski and T. Gawron (eds.), Constitutional Courts in Comparison: The U.S. Supreme Court and the German Federal Constitutional Court (Berghahn 2002) 170.
125. A. v. Brünneck, 'Constitutional Review and Legislation in Western Democracies' in C. Landfried (ed.), Constitutional Review and Legislation: An International Comparison (Nomos 1988) 230.
126. F.R. Llorente, 'Constitutional Review and Legislation in Spain' in C. Landfried (ed.), Constitutional Review and Legislation: An International Comparison (Nomos 1988) 127, 143.
127. Reports an even more extreme attitude of the Spanish Constitutional Court: "They consider no facts other than those raised by the parties and almost never include considerations based on a direct analysis of the social or natural reality affected by the law.".
128. F.R. Llorente, 'Constitutional Review and Legislation in Spain' in C. Landfried (ed.), Constitutional Review and Legislation: An International Comparison (Nomos 1988) 230.
129. F.R. Llorente, 'Constitutional Review and Legislation in Spain' in C. Landfried (ed.), Constitutional Review and Legislation: An International Comparison (Nomos 1988) 230-231.
130. K. Zweigert and H. Dietrich, 'Bundesverfassungsgericht: Institution mit Zukunft' in W. Däubler and G. Küsel (eds.), Verfassungsgericht und Politik (Rohwolt 1979) 11, 19 (translation by E. Blankenburg).
131. C. Landfried, 'Constitutional Review and Legislation in the Federal Republic of Germany' in C. Landfried (ed.), Constitutional Review and Legislation: An International Comparison (Nomos 1988) 162.
132. C. Landfried, 'Constitutional Review and Legislation in the Federal Republic of Germany' in C. Landfried (ed.), Constitutional Review and Legislation: An International Comparison (Nomos 1988) 166.
133. K. v. Beyme, 'The Genesis of Constitutional Review in Parliamentary Systems' in C. Landfried (ed.), Constitutional Review and Legislation: An International Comparison (Nomos 1988) 21, 37.
134. G. Vanberg, The Politics of Constitutional Review in Germany (Cambridge University Press 2005) 119.
135. G. Vanberg, The Politics of Constitutional Review in Germany (Cambridge University Press 2005) 52.
136. R.A. Posner and W. Landes, 'The Independent Judiciary in an Interest-Group Perspective' (1976) 18 Journal of Law and Economics 875.
137. L.J. Wintgens (ed.), Legisprudence: A New Theoretical Approach to Legislation (Hart Publishing 2002) 3.
138. As Kommers rightfully remarks 'there is no logical reason for believing that the Basic Law is safer in the hands of a constitutional tribunal than in the hands of parliamentary bodies'.
139. D. Kommers, 'The Federal Constitutional Court' (German Issues 14, American Institute for German Studies 1994) 35.
140. G. Vanberg, The Politics of Constitutional Review in Germany (Cambridge University Press 2005) 108.
141. Presumes 'that the FCC is more likely to rule against a statute when an interest group or an outside government files a brief in opposition to a challenged statute'.
142. E.R. Elhauge, 'Does Interest Group Theory Justify More Intrusive Judicial Review?' (1991) 101 Yale Law Journal 31.
143. A. Vermeulen, Judging under Uncertainty: An Institutional Theory of Legal Interpretation (Harvard University Press 2006) 65 (with further references).
144. G. Vanberg, The Politics of Constitutional Review in Germany (Cambridge University Press 2005) 16, 21-25, 49, 62, 117 and 120-125.
145. Judgment of 14 February 2012 (2 BvL 4/10) on the remuneration of university professors. http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/ls20120214_1bvl000410.html.
146. Judgment of 9 February 2010 (1 BvL 1/09) http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/ls20100209_1bvl000109.html.
147. M. Meßling, 'Grundrechtsschutz durch Gesetzgebungsverfahren: Zum Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts vom 9. Februar 2010 (SGB II-Regelsatz-Urteil)' in C. Hohmann-Dennhardt et al. (eds.), Grundrechte und Solidarität: Festschrift für Renate Jäger (Engel 2011) 787.
148. K. Meßerschmidt, 'The Good Shepherd of Karlsruhe: The "Hartz IV" Decision on Unemployment Benefits and Social Allowances - A Good Example of Regulatory Review by the German Federal Constitutional Court?' in P. Popelier, A. Mazmanyan and W. Vandenbruwaene (eds.), Role of Courts in a Context of Multilevel Governance (Intersentia 2012) 235.
149. Judgment of 18 July 2012 (1 BvL 10/10, 2/11).
150. C.R. Sunstein, One Case at a Time: Judicial Minimalism on the Supreme Court (Harvard University Press 1999).
151. H. Schulze-Fielitz, 'Der politische Kompromiß als Chance und Gefahr für die Rationalität der Gesetzgebeung'(1988) 13 Jahrbuch für Rechtssoziologie und Rechtstheorie 290.
152. C. Landfried, 'Constitutional Review and Legislation in the Federal Republic of Germany' in C. Landfried (ed.), Constitutional Review and Legislation: An International Comparison (Nomos 1988) 18.
153. J.B. Grossmann and C. Epp, 'Agenda Formation on the Policy Active U.S. Supreme Court' in R. Rogowski and T. Gawron (eds.), Constitutional Courts in Comparison: The U.S. Supreme Court and the German Federal Constitutional Court (Berghahn 2002) 105.
154. G. Vanberg, The Politics of Constitutional Review in Germany (Cambridge University Press 2005) 131-133.